The GOP establishment is belatedly learning that there are very real and frightening consequences to inviting ignorance embracing Christian extremists, racists, nativists, and those fighting a rear guard action against modernity into one's political party in droves while driving rational, logic based members out. Yes, turning out the Christofascists and white supremacists over the years helped win elections in the short term, Richard Nixon's "Southern Strategy" and George W. Bush's anti-gay agenda in 2004 are examples, but once the barbarians are through the gates, they can prove to be beyond control. This is the lesson now playing out on the national stage much to the shock of sane Americans and nation's around the world. Indeed, to many, America must look like an insane asylum where the patients have overwhelmed the orderlies and medical staff. A piece in the New York Times looks at the unraveling of the GOP and the lunacy of Trump supporters rallying to a man who has offered ZERO policy plans and relies on sound bites and vulgarity. Here are excerpts:

From Michigan to Louisiana to California on
Friday, rank-and-file Republicans expressed mystification, dismissal and
contempt regarding the instructions that their party’s most high-profile
leaders were urgently handing down to them: Reject and defeatDonald J. Trump.

Their angry reactions,
in the 24 hours since Mitt
Romney and John
McCain urged millions of voters to cooperate in a grand strategy to
undermine Mr. Trump’s candidacy, have captured the seemingly inexorable force
of a movement that still puzzles the Republican elite and now threatens to
unravel the party they hold dear.

In interviews, even
lifelong Republicans who cast a ballot for Mr. Romney four years ago rebelled
against his message and plan. “I personally am disgusted by it — I think it’s
disgraceful,” said Lola Butler, 71, a retiree from Mandeville, La., who voted
for Mr. Romney in 2012. “You’re telling me who to vote for and who not to vote
for? Please.”

“There’s nothing short
of Trump shooting my daughter in the street and my grandchildren — there is
nothing and nobody that’s going to dissuade me from voting for Trump,” Ms.
Butler said.

The furious campaign now underway to stop Mr. Trump and the
equally forceful rebellion against it captured the essence of the party’s
breakdown over the past several weeks: Its most prominent guardians,
misunderstanding their own voters, antagonize them as they try to reason with
them, driving them even more energetically to Mr. Trump’s side.

As Mr. Romney amplified his pleas on Friday, Mr. Trump snubbed a
major meeting of Republican activists and leaders after rumblings that
protesters were prepared to demonstrate against him there, in the latest sign
of Mr. Trump’s break from the apparatus of the party whose nomination he is
marching toward.

As polls showed Mr. Trump likely to capture the
Louisiana primary on Saturday, the biggest prize among states holding contests
this weekend, the party establishment in Washington seemed seized by anxiety
and despair. At the Conservative Political Action Conference, a long-running
gathering of traditional conservatives, attendees feared that they were
witnessing an event that has not occurred in more than a century: the breaking
apart of a major American political party.

Steve Forbes, the publisher and two-time Republican presidential
candidate, summed up the mood at the event. “Parties,” he said, “don’t usually
commit suicide,” suggesting the party was well on its way with Mr. Trump.

The problem, for figures like Mr. Forbes and Mr. Romney, is that
Mr. Trump’s supporters seem profoundly uninterested at the moment with the
image, expectations or traditions of the Republican Party, according to
interviews with more than three dozen voters, elected officials and operatives.
They are, in many cases, hostile to it.

Voters have not taken kindly to the recommendation, describing
the request as a patronizing directive from an elite figure who thoroughly
misunderstands their feelings of alienation from the political system. (Soon
after, Mr. McCain endorsed his remarks.)

Conservative talk radio shows lit up Friday with incensed
callers who said they were “livid,” “mad” and “on the verge of tears” as they
listened to Mr. Romney scoldingly describe what he called Mr. Trump’s misogyny,
vulgarity and dishonesty, and urged them to abandon him.

Frustrated Republicans seized on Mr. Romney’s status as a party
insider who was insulated from the realities, indignities and rage of average
Americans headed to the polls this year. “He’s an establishment figure,” said
Faith Sheptoski-Forbush of Romulus, Mich. “So that’s what you get.”

For years I was a Cassandra of what would happen to the GOP. My concerns were dismissed and, after I came out, I was dragged through the mud and ridiculed for my "life style choice." The current GOP deserves every bit of its misfortune and self-inflicted suicide.

While the Republican Party is clearly in crisis, so to is the LGBT movement in the view of some. After success on the marriage equality front - spearheaded in large part by groups other than HRC, the Task Force and other self-proclaimed leaders of the community - now things appear to be in disarray as Christofascist controlled Republicans pus anti-gay laws and the granting of special rights to Christian extremist. Rather than focusing on this threat, HRC has insanely been calling for Barack Obama to nominate an out gay to the Supreme Court, as if any such nomination would have a snowball's chance in Hell of success. Indeed, the fight of LGBT protections now seems to be resting on state level organizations (I have ceased all financial support to HRC and give instead to Equality Virginia) given the vacuum in serious leadership at the national level. A piece in The Advocate looks at the disturbing situation. Here are highlights:

Just as the sun was setting on the landmark year that
delivered marriage equality — an achievement unthinkable just a decade earlier
— an unsettling headline appeared fromTime magazine:
“2015 Made History for LGBT Rights. Why Few Are Optimistic About 2016.”

The piece was written by veteran
reporter Philip Elliott from Las Vegas, where LGBT leaders had gathered to
assess both the progress made and the road ahead. After interviewing some 25
movement leaders, Elliott noted, “a fractured picture emerges that suggests
little agreement about what should — or even what can — come next.”

Of course, just as the LGBTQIs’
diversified agendas defy uniformity, no single answer to that question has
emerged over the past year. But perhaps more disconcerting, nor has a single
leader delivered anything that amounts to a compelling narrative on the way
forward.

It is a muted chaos, to some extent. Most of the basic
structures of our modern-day movement — such as the Human Rights Campaign and
Lambda Legal and Gay and Lesbian Advocates and Defenders, to name a few —
aren’t going anywhere in the near term. Yet we are also seeing signs of
transition with Kevin Cathcart, who has led Lambda Legal for nearly 25 years,
announcing his retirement effective April 2016. And some movement staples, such
as Freedom to Marry and the Empire State Pride Agenda, are ceasing operations.

[S]ome new arrivals, like the
progressive-conservative donor mind meld Freedom for All Americans (FFAA), have
begun to lay out their visions for achieving nondiscrimination protections
nationwide, starting at the state level and eventually moving to the federal
level. This organization is interesting in two respects. First, it represents a
significant point of differentiation between the LGBT movement and other progressive
movements in that we are actually increasingly being resourced by both liberal
and conservative donors. Even if many Republican politicians don’t yet reflect
this reality in rhetoric, the LGBT movement has still managed to reach across
the aisle for critical legislative wins in states such as New York (enacting
marriage equality in 2011) and even federally (passing employment protections
through the U.S. Senate in 2013).

Second, FFAA embodies an organizational model that is
more Freedom to Marry and less Human Rights Campaign — the organization is not
intended to exist in perpetuity but rather to achieve its stated goal, and then
fold. In many ways, this should help keep it focused on its goal rather than on
continually growing a budget to meet multiple objectives that require the
organization to become more territorial even as it becomes less accountable.

While this model will perhaps
make the organization more nimble, it does not guarantee the type of visionary
leadership that has thus far been missing to combat new obstacles to LGBT
equality, such as 2015’s right-wing attack on the toilet.

Chad Griffin, president of HRC, suggested in several
different interviews that if only the local [Houston] TV stations that ran the
opposition’s deplorable “No men in women’s bathrooms” ads had rejected them
instead, we somehow could have avoided disaster. If that’s one of the big
takeaways of our lead organization on how to combat what’s emerging as the
homophobes’ next line of attack, we are in real trouble.

Our large organizations know
we’re in trouble too. That’s why they have been advising against pushing
a pro-LGBT nondiscrimination initiative in Michigan that, at the time of this
writing, appears to have a shot at making the ballot in November. [Update:
The Michigan initiative has now been pulled.]

I’m pleased to see Fair Michigan pushing the issue for
several reasons. First of all, they have little to lose. LGBT Michiganders
don’t currently have nondiscrimination protections, so if you start with
nothing and you lose, you’ve still got what you had before — nothing. However,
if you win, you’ve got something you never had before.

Second, anyone who thinks the
right-wing Michigan legislature is going to start cozying up to equality based
on lobbying efforts anytime in the near future is living in an alternative
universe. This is the same GOP-controlled body that watched Indiana take it on
the chin last year following the passage of its anti-LGBT initiative and yet
still moved forward with enacting a package of antigay “religious refusal” laws
that allow publicly funded adoption agencies to deny adoptions to same-sex
parents. Waiting on Michigan’s hyper-conservative government to enact equality
measures is nothing but a prescription for justice delayed. Some of those lawmakers
are going to have to lose their seats over an anti-LGBT vote before they start
going the right way on our issues, and I don’t see anyone pouring the resources
into Michigan to unseat anti-LGBT lawmakers.

Third, the past decade has shown
our major organizations to be preternaturally risk averse. I say this even as I
believe that our legal advocates at places like Lambda Legal and GLAD are doing
incredibly good work. But grassroots efforts like those being pushed by
Michigan attorney Dana Nessel and Fair Michigan are a necessary part of our
movement’s process.

The fact that no one agrees on
anything isn’t necessarily cause for despair. What’s most important is that we
have an aggressive grassroots effort to push the establishment groups out of
their comfort zone. That’s a tension that forces the innovation necessary to
propel our movement forward.

Perhaps it's because of my background as a former political party activist and the fact that I believe in playing hard ball, I agree that lobby efforts will do little to changes the minds of Republicans only too happy to prostitute themselves to Christofascists. Even in Virginia a few Republicans are coming to see that long term, anti-gay bigotry and such self-prostitution will be the death of the party. Most, however, or only to happy to ask "how high" when hate merchants like Victoria Cobb and The Family Foundation tell them to jump. We need to ruthlessly go after some of these individuals who make tawdry whores look virtuous. Meanwhile, don't hold your breath waiting for me to be invited to join the board of Equality Virginia or similar organizations.

As I note frequently, as a former Republican back in the days before the GOP went batshit crazy and embraced ignorance, religious extremism and open hostility to all non-whites, in my view, the only way to fix the GOP is for the party to die. The cancer has simply metastasized to a point where the patient cannot be saved and for the good of the country, a speedy death is what one must pray for. Conservative columnist Kathleen Parker seemingly is coming to a similar conclusion, although she caveats her view with "this GOP." My problem with Parker's piece is that she assumes that such a thing as "Republicans of conscience" can still exist in such a putrefied and ugly political party. Most former Republicans of conscience now see themselves as independents - now the largest percentage of voting age Americans - or reluctant Democrats. To her credit, however, (i) she does lay blame for what the GOP has become at the feet of the short-sighted, cynical opportunists in the so-called GOP establishment that first welcomed the barbarians into the party, and (ii) she has denounced their actions in the past, albeit perhaps not forcefully enough. Here are excerpts from Parker's latest column in the Washington Post on the demise of a once great party:

So it has come to this: a brokered
convention or President Hillary Clinton.

These options seem to be what’s
left to Republicans of conscience, who are, let’s face it, rather
Romney-come-latelies to the pyre. They’re based on the following evidence: It
is highly unlikely that Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio or John Kasich can wrest the nomination from
Donald Trump, even though most polls show each of the three beating Clinton but
Clinton beating Trump.

The
most Republicans can hope for now is that Kasich and Rubio win the primaries in
their home states of Ohio and Florida, respectively, as Cruz did in Texas, and enough other contests
to deny Trump the necessary delegates, thus paving the way for a brokered
convention.

The other option, offered in the
service of saving the republic, is to vote for Clinton.

There, there, now. ’Tis bitter
fruit, indeed, for any Republican to consider voting for Clinton for reasons
well-known to all sentient beings, including, for the sake of clarity, her lack
of appeal to the GOP’s dominant older-white-male demographic. This was the party,
after all, that saw the future in former Alaska governor Sarah Palin — she of
the red-heeled tundra, sparkler of fantasies and promisor of all that is
ordinary. . . . Not surprisingly, she has endorsed Trump. Because? Because he’s
an “outsider” (like any other Ivy-educated heir-billionaire) and “We are so desperate in Alaska for any semblance of
glamour and culture.”

Even though few Republicans could
ever vote Democratic, and certainly not for Clinton, it wouldn’t be the end of
the world as we know it. But voting for Trump, whom other civilized nations
find abhorrent, might be.

Any hope that
Trump might not really mean what he says is either delusional or a gamble too
far. Which would voters prefer: The man who promises a “total and complete shutdown of Muslims entering
the United States,” or one who’ll say anything to get elected? The lunatic or
the liar?

It has finally dawned on
Republicans that their die is cast and Trump is about to destroy the party he
relatively recently rejoined. Like a bunch of Ebenezer Scrooges, GOP leaders
have begun emerging from their sleep, blinking at the horror of past misdeeds,
trying to prevent a future that their actions foretold.

Republicans . . . . don’t deserve
much slack for allowing their party to devolve from an ideas-driven
counterweight to liberalism to a ragtag consortium of discontents dissociated
from anything like an intellectual trust. From William F. Buckley to Donald J. Trump in
the wink of a Palin eye, the reaper is grim, indeed. . . . Love of country
requires that Trump be stopped.

[I]t may be time for some creative
destruction. Should Trump become the nominee, more reasoned minds in the GOP
might do well to abandon it altogether. The death of this party — of
know-nothing ugliness and outright fascist rhetoric — might be a blessing, a
cleansing of the palate before a resurrection of the party of limited
government and individual liberty.

Watching the GOP "debate" last night was painful - almost a form of masochism. The take away is that ALL of the GOP presidential candidates, including John Kasich who looks like the lone adult on the stage simply because of the crassness and juvenile behavior of the others, are all peddling snake oil to the ignorant and uninformed who increasingly make up the Republican Party base. NONE of the budget proposals of these con-artist work when one adds up the numbers, a fact that Megan Kelly tried to demonstrate in questions posed to Donald Trump. And on foreign policy, we again heard ridiculous claims of needing to rebuild America's military with no reference to the reality that America already spends as much as the next 10 largest military spenders combined. Sadly, to be a Republican nowadays - and I say this as a former Republican - I believe that one must be either a religious extremist, racist, utterly uninformed and not looking beyond sound bites, have had a lobotomy, or some combination thereof. A column in the New York Times by Paul Krugman looks at the con artists at work. Here are highlights:

So Republicans are going to nominate a
candidate who talks complete nonsense on domestic policy; who believes that
foreign policy can be conducted via bullying and belligerence; who cynically
exploits racial and ethnic hatred for political gain.

But that was always going to happen, however the primary season
turned out. The only news is that the candidate in question is probably going
to be Donald Trump. Establishment Republicans denounce Mr. Trump as a fraud,
which he is. But is he more fraudulent than the establishment trying to stop
him? Not really.

Actually, when you look at the people making those
denunciations, you have to wonder: Can they really be that lacking in
self-awareness?

Donald Trump is a “con artist,” says Marco Rubio — who has
promised to enact giant tax cuts, undertake a huge military buildup and balance
the budget without any cuts in benefits to Americans over 55.

Mr. [Paul] Ryan also
declares that the “party of Lincoln” must “reject any group or cause that is
built on bigotry.” Has he ever heard of Nixon’s “Southern strategy”; of Ronald
Reagan’s invocations of welfare queens and “strapping young bucks” using food
stamps; of Willie Horton?

Put it this way:
There’s a reason whites in the Deep South vote something like 90 percent
Republican, and it’s not their philosophical attachment to libertarian
principles.

Then there’s foreign
policy, where Mr. Trump is, if anything, more reasonable — or more accurately,
less unreasonable — than his rivals. He’s fine with torture, but who on that
side of the aisle isn’t? He’s belligerent, but unlike Mr. Rubio, he isn’t the favorite of the neoconservatives, a.k.a. the
people responsible for the Iraq debacle. He’s even said what everyone knows but
nobody on the right is supposed to admit, that the Bush administration
deliberately misled America into that disastrous war.

In fact, you have to wonder why, exactly, the Republican
establishment is really so horrified by Mr. Trump. Yes, he’s a con man, but
they all are. So why is this con job different from any other?

The answer, I’d suggest, is that the establishment’s problem
with Mr. Trump isn’t the con he brings; it’s the cons he disrupts.

First, there’s the con Republicans usually
manage to pull off in national elections — the one where they pose as a
serious, grown-up party honestly trying to grapple with America’s problems. The
truth is that that party died a long time ago, that these days it’s voodoo
economics and neocon fantasies all the way down. But the establishment wants to
preserve the facade, which will be hard if the nominee is someone who refuses
to play his part.

Equally important, the Trump phenomenon threatens the con the
G.O.P. establishment has been playing on its own base. I’m talking about the
bait and switch in which white voters are induced to hate big government by dog
whistles about Those People, but actual policies are all about rewarding the
donor class.

What Donald Trump has
done is tell the base that it doesn’t have to accept the whole package. He
promises to make America white again — surely everyone knows that’s the real
slogan, right? — while simultaneously promising to protect Social Security and
Medicare, and hinting at (though not actually proposing) higher taxes on the
rich. Outraged establishment Republicans splutter that he’s not a real
conservative, but neither, it turns out, are many of their own voters.

I find
the prospect of a Trump administration terrifying, and so should you. But you
should also be terrified by the prospect of a President Rubio, sitting in the
White House with his circle of warmongers, or a President Cruz, whom one
suspects would love to bring back the Spanish Inquisition.

With falsely named "religious freedom" bills being defeated or vetoed in a number of states and businesses threatening to leave states where they have been enacted, the Republicans in the Virginia General Assembly, especially the House of Delegates, continue to demonstrate that they are total shameless whores to anti-gay hate groups, especially The Family Foundation ("TFF"). While Governor McAuliffe has said that he will veto any such bill that targets gays and grants special rights to Christofascists, the members of the GOP seem undeterred in striving to please their theocratic masters at TFF. The Washington Post looks at the continued GOP self-prostitution. Here are excerpts:

Lawmakers in Virginia on Thursday
reworked and advanced legislation that would prohibit the government from
punishing religious organizations that discriminate against same-sex couples.

The bill is a more narrowly focused
version of one that made waves last month after a gay delegate from Fairfax implored
his colleagues in an emotional floor speech to consider the sweep of
history and act with fairness. The measure passed the House anyway, but it hit
a roadblock in the usually more moderate Senate.

Now lawmakers are back with a bill
that the House sponsor, Del. C. Todd Gilbert (R-Shenandoah), said is an effort
to craft a compromise while protecting the religious freedom of people who feel
under attack by shifting cultural attitudes.

Gay rights activists and the
American Civil Liberties Union of Virginia said the bill still amounts to a
license to discriminate and would not pass constitutional muster.

Gov. Terry
McAuliffe (D) has said he would veto bills that seek to erode gay rights.

Although
lawmakers could not cite any examples of discrimination against those with
religious objections to same-sex marriage, advocates for the bill said it’s a
preemptive strike against the potential for that to happen in the future.

Claire Guthrie Gastañaga, executive
director of the ACLU of Virginia, said the free exercise of religious beliefs
is already protected under the First Amendment, Virginia’s statute for
religious freedom and the state’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

However, she said, the bill seeks
to elevate one type of religious belief above all others.

“It’s unconstitutional on its face,
in reference to only giving special privileges to people who have a certain
belief which is a belief about marriage,” she said. “It’s unconstitutional
viewpoint discrimination. The government can’t do that.”

Previously, the bill protected
discrimination against not just gay married couples, but also transgender
people and anyone straight or gay who has sex outside marriage.

In another change, the earlier
version applied to a long list of entities with sincerely held religious
beliefs, including individuals, private companies and trusts. Now it says only
clergy, religious organizations and anyone affiliated with those organizations
can discriminate without fear of penalty, such as losing tax benefits, grants,
contracts, loans, scholarships, certification, accreditation or jobs.

Thursday, March 03, 2016

Just when you think the GOP death spiral can get any more bizarre or ugly, Donald Trump proves you wrong. In response to Mitt Romney's take down of Trump today, The Donald lashed back and said "“He was begging for my endorsement,” . . . “I could
have said, ‘Mitt, drop to your knees.’ He would have dropped to his knees.” Trump indeed make junior high play ground bullying look sophisticated and genteel. The man is crude, vulgar and obnoxious. Yet, evangelical Christians are flocking to him and, as a result, showing their own hypocrisy and idiocy. Here are details from The Raw Story:

According to conservative radio host Andrew McKay, Republican
evangelical voters should not choose Donald Trump because he suggested that
former GOP presidential nominee Mitt Romney offered to give him oral sex.

“He was begging for my endorsement,” Trump said. “I could have said,
‘Mitt, drop to your knees.’ He would have dropped to his knees.”

Following the speech, MSNBC’s
Thomas Roberts asked McKay, who hosts a radio show in Pensacola, for his
reaction.

“We live in an area that
styles itself as being very Christian, lots of churches, evangelical voters,
Baptists, Catholics, this whole area is dominated by religion,” McKay
explained. “And I think they have to all ask themselves the question, do they
want someone who gets up there and says that a former presidential candidate
for their party got down on his knees and offered to blow him?”

“That was the style of the
candidate that you want to elect as your nominee?” he asked. “That’s what a lot
of people are struggling with.”

Even as the GOP civil war rages, the efforts to pander to bigots and win votes by fanning hate by Republican presidential candidates also continues. Not counting Donald Trump and his cozy relations ship with white supremacy groups and the KKK is Ted Cruz who has formed a ludicrously named "religious liberty" advisory panel filled with hate group leaders, anti-gay theocrats and Christian dominionists. Obviously, Cruz's idea of religious liberty is a Christian theocracy. Once again we see that Paul Ryan's claim that the GOP doesn't prey on people's prejudices is bullshit. Oh, and by the way, Marco Rubio, a/k/a Marcobot has formed a similar Christofascist advisory board. Here are details from The Advocate:

Republican presidential aspirant Ted Cruz has formed a
“religious liberty” council for his campaign, filled with antigay activists
including Tony Perkins, the Benham brothers, and Bishop Harry Jackson.

The council “seems intent on
undermining LGBT rights,” theWashington Bladereports.
Cruz announced the council’s formation Monday, the day before he wonthree
of Super Tuesday’s11
state Republican primaries and caucuses.

Cruz’spress
releaseon the council
didn’t mention LGBT issues, but it was clear that the council, which has the
task of guiding his policies, would sympathize with government workers and
business owners who don’t want to serve LGBT clients, especially same-sex
couples seeking marriage-related goods and services.

“Increasingly, renegade
government officials seek to coerce people of faith either to act in a manner
that violates their faith or forfeit their career,” Cruz, a U.S. senator from
Texas, said in the release. “When I am elected president, that will change.”

Perkins’s group, by the way, has been designated ananti-LGBT
hate groupby the
progressive Southern Poverty Law Center, because of the damaging misinformation
it spreads.

The Benham brothers, David and
Jason, are real estate entrepreneurs who in 2014 saw their planned reality showscrapped
by HGTVafter outcry
against their antigay views. Among other things, they have claimed that“homosexuality
and its agenda” are “attacking the nation”and
thatSatan
is behind marriage equality.Their
father, Flip Benham, is head of Operation Save America, an antigay and
antichoice group that split off from Operation Rescue.

Jackson, a minister in the Washington,
D.C., metro area, was a leading opponent of marriage equality in D.C. After the
district adopted a marriage equality law in 2009, hesued— unsuccessfully — in an attempt to
force a popular vote on the issue. He also has made antigay remarkssuch
as“Folks who cannot
reproduce want to recruit your kids.” Find the full list of the advisory
council’s membershere.

Another Republican presidential
hopeful, U.S. Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida, has formed a similar
advisory group,with members
including megachurch minister Rick Warren and lawyers with the Alliance
Defending Freedom, a legal group that often fights LGBT rights.

The right wing melt down and civil war seems to be intensifying and I candidly find it difficult to summon any sympathy for any of the combatants be they the GOP establishment elite or Trump and his knuckle dragging supporters. While I shudder at the upheaval that the GOP implosion may wreak on the nation, at the same time I hope that it may make it possible for a reemergence of politics of decency and a goal of providing solutions to pressing needs and issues rather than being consumed by the hate, bigotry and selfishness that are the hallmarks of today's GOP. Meanwhile, in the GOP civil war, Fox News is seemingly throwing Marco Rubio overboard. A piece in New York Magazine looks at this new right wing backstabbing. Here are are excerpts:

In his role as the donor class's darling, Marco Rubio has enjoyed support from the Republicans' media arm, Fox News. . . . . But this alliance now seems to be over. According to three Fox sources, Fox chief Roger Ailes has told people he's lost confidence in Rubio's ability to win. "We're finished with Rubio," Ailes recently told a Fox host. "We can't do the Rubio thing anymore."

Ailes was already concerned about Rubio's lackluster performance in GOP primaries and caucuses, winning only one contest among the 15 that have been held. But the more proximate cause for the flip was an embarrassing New York Times article revealing that Rubio and Ailes had a secret dinner meeting in 2013 during which the Florida senator successfully lobbied the Fox News chief to throw his support behind the "Gang of 8" comprehensive immigration-reform bill.

Fox's corporate support of Rubio has also been a growing source of tension with the network's more conservative talent. Sean Hannity was furious that the Times article reported how he went along with Rubio's immigration proposal. During an interview with Trump on Monday, Hannity barely defended Fox while Trump trashed Rubio backers like Hayes. "He shouldn't be on the air," Trump said. The best Hannity could muster was to change the subject. "Have you ever watched MSNBC?" he said. "They suck."

Ailes is now back to searching for a candidate the channel can rally behind. "He's thinking, What do we do about the whole damn thing?" one of the news executive's friends said.

I often find that foreign publications - often those from the UK - provide better political coverage and commentary than what one finds in American publications. A case in point is the Financial Times, which has an on point column on Donald Trump and the demise of once great republics. The piece focuses on the decline of the Republican Party and notes its "wild obstructionism,” its demonization of political institutions, its
flirtation with bigotry and its “racially tinged derangement syndrome”
over President Barack Obama. It also notes that Trump supporters are angry about all the things Republicans have told them to be angry about these past seven-and-a-half years.”

However, the piece also takes a broader scale view and looks at the decline in the American citizenry, or at least the element of it that is gravitating to Trump and his fascist agenda. With plenty of justification, citizens of the UK, the rest of Europe and, indeed, the world are shocked, aghast and concerned that a "narcissistic bully" like Trump could be the leading contender for the GOP nomination. The piece notes that while Trump might be compared to to Italy's former leader, Silvio Berlusconi, but concludes that Trump lacks Berlusconi's charm and, unlike Mr Trump, Berlusconi's never threatened to round up
and deport millions of individuals and their families.

My two favorite quotes? One looks at the fall of the Roman Republic. The other looks at the fall of Germany to Hitler. Here they are:

[T] the wealth of empire destabilized the Roman
republic. In the end, Augustus, heir of the popular party, terminated
the republic and installed himself as emperor. He did so by preserving
all the forms of the republic, while he dispensed with their meaning.

It
was the ultra-conservative president Paul von Hindenburg who made
Hitler chancellor of Germany in 1933. What made the new ruler so
destructive was not only that he was a paranoid lunatic, but that he
ruled a great power. Trump may be no Hitler. But the US is also no
Weimar Germany. It is a vastly more important country even than that.

Great republics die when (i) the populace are are exhausted from excessive foreign adventurism and seek a strong man to impose perceived stability, and (ii) citizens put nativism and bigotry ahead of logical thinking. The piece ends hoping that a majority of Americans will come to their senses and stop the de facto effort to over throw the American republic.

As noted in a prior post, GOP Speaker of the House of Representatives Paul Ryan has disingenuously stated that there is no place for bigotry and preying on people's prejudices in the Republican Party. Either Ryan is delusional or a bald faced liar. For years since Richard Nixon launched his "Southern Strategy" to win white votes in the South to today and the racist remarks that Donald Trump is throwing out to his supporters, the GOP long pandered to people's prejudices. The LGBT community, like blacks knows first hand the lengths that Republicans will go to fan hate, division and ingrain prejudices against those many whites deem as "other.". A new study tracts the correlation between whites who vote Republican and those with negative views of blacks which is no coincidence notwithstanding Paul Ryan's protestations. Here are highlights from the Washington Post:

In the South, it seems, old prejudices have persisted. Southern
counties that had more slaves on the eve of the Civil War are distinct
from their neighbors: White residents in those areas are more hostile
toward African Americans and they are more likely to vote Republican
today, new research shows. Drawing on archival Census figures and recent
polls, the study adds to an expanding body of evidence on the importance of racial anxiety to the predominantly white Republican coalition. "The
underlying racial hostility goes on in the culture, passed on from
generation to generation," said David Sears, a psychologist at
the University of California, Los Angeles. "Local culture doesn't change
very quickly."

About 4 million people, or 32
percent of the population, were enslaved in the South in 1860. . . .Following emancipation, not only did white Southerners lose the
source of their economic power in this region. Given their numbers, the
former slaves also threatened to end white political dominance at the
polls.

In response, white Southerners in those counties with
large black populations found ways of preserving their power over the
freed slaves. Soon after the war, for example, former planters developed
the system of sharecropping, which allowed them to maintain their
control over black labor. Itwas an improvement over slavery, but it was still a form of peonage.

The end of Reconstruction allowed white, Democratic governments
to disenfranchise black voters and to segregate public spaces. These
governments also acquiesced in thousands of lynchings.

Today, most of the old plantations have been sold off. Where slaves once
picked cotton, there are subdivisions and stadiums. The prejudice,
however, remains. "There are still a lot of people who think blacks are simply inferior
to whites," said Roger Ransom, an economic historian at the University
of California, Riverside. "It is definitely there, and I don’t think it
ever went away."

Acharya, Blackwell and Sen examined data on
racial attitudes from national polls conducted in 2010 and 2011,
using the responses of white participants in the states of the former
Confederacy, including West Virginia, as well as Missouri and Kentucky,
slave states that did not secede. Those in counties where more slaves
lived in 1860 were more likely to hold negative views of African
Americans.

Recent research
by economists Ilyana Kuziemko and Ebonya Washington suggests that white
Southerners who defected from the Democratic party after the
civil-rights movement were those with the most
conservative views on race. Democrats who held moderate and conservative
views on other issues and who lived in other parts of the country
largely remained loyal.

Polls consistently show that Republicans are more likely to hold racial
prejudices, and not just in the South. Nationally, almost one in five
Republicans opposes interracial dating, compared to just one in
20 Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center.
While 79 percent of Republicans agree with negative statements about
blacks such as the one about slavery and discrimination, just 32 percent
of Democrats do, the Associated Press has found.

"This party does not prey on people’s prejudices. We appeal to their
highest ideals," Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), the speaker of the House, told reporters Tuesday. "This is the party of Lincoln." . . . research, however, suggests that the party does benefit from racial antipathy.

Sears
of the University of California has found that even among white voters
with equally conservative views on issues unrelated to race, those with
more negative views about African Americans are more likely to vote
Republican.

[S]lavery's enduring legacy is evident not only in statistics on black
poverty and education. The institution continues to influence how white
Southerners think and feel about race -- and how they vote. Slavery
still divides the American people.

"When we study public opinion,
we tend to focus on the now," Sen said. "These political attitudes
really can persist over generations, and last an incredibly long time."

As noted in a post yesterday, Donald Trump represents the end result of the Republican Party's years of fear mongering against blacks, gays, non-Christians, Muslims and anyone else the largely lily white GOP base deems to be "other." Now, these authoritarian loving sheeple are looking for a dictatorial strong man to protect them from the many menaces that the GOP has fabricated and preached against for years. Now, having created the atmosphere for the rise of someone like Trump - or Hitler in 1930's Germany - the GOP is desperate to find someone who can defeat the Frankenstein monster that has been created. As a column in the Washington Post notes, there seems to be no one up to that challenge. Here are column highlights:

The
Republican Party is on the verge of being taken over by an egomaniac who
appeals to the nation’s darkest impulses. Yet Donald Trump’s foes are
splintered, tactically but also philosophically.

It doesn’t help that each of his three serious
challengers is a flawed alternative. None is sufficiently dominant to force the
others aside.

Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Tex.) has the most legitimate claim as a
Trump-slayer. He’s now beaten him in four contests. Yet Cruz is so disliked by
so many party leaders that they have refused to rally behind him. Indeed, many
in the GOP view Cruz as being nearly as vulnerable to Hillary Clinton as Trump
is.

The
Republican establishment plainly prefers Sen. Marco Rubio (R-Fla.), but voters
have not gone along. Rubio did manage to win the Minnesota caucuses. But he ran
third in eight of the other 10 states that voted Tuesday and has lost 14 times
since the nomination battle began.

Ohio Gov. John Kasich may well be the party’sstrongest
potential general-election candidate. But his relative moderation
has marginalized him in an increasingly right-wing party.

But the
difficulty Republicans have in identifying a single candidate to take Trump
down speaks to a deeper problem. Its leaders have yet to decide whether Trump’s
greatest sin is that he exploits bigotry or that he fails to bow to
conservative ideological orthodoxy.

While conservativessuch as Sen. Ben
Sasse (R-Neb.)have
brought the two strands together, there is ambivalence about how to go after
Trump because the party itself has often played at backlash politics around
race and immigration — and because, throughout President Obama’s tenure, it has
embraced Trump as an ally in stirring resentment on the far right.

Moreover,
some of Trump’s most extreme positions have won wide approval from the
Republican rank-and-file. For example, exit polls reported by CNN and The Post
found broad backing for his temporary ban on Muslims from entering the United
States: It was favored by 78 percent of Republican primary voters inAlabama, 67 percent inTexasand
63 percent inVirginia.

It’s true that anti-Trump Republicans found common ground
in excoriating Trump for his equivocation in condemning the Ku Klux Klan and
the racist leader David Duke. “This party does not prey on people’s
prejudices,”insisted House
Speaker Paul Ryan (R-Wis.).
In fact, the party has subtly and not so subtly played on racial resentment —birtherism, the claim that Obama is a
Muslim, Ronald Reagan’s famous “welfare queen” reference — for decades. Trump
is just cruder about it.

And blocking Trump now would enrage his army of followers and
prove to them that the party is every bit as distant from their concerns as
their hero has been saying.

The hate merchants who disingenuously claim that Christians are being persecuted by being subjected to non-discrimination laws and barred from mistreating LGBT individuals suffered two defeats - one in South Dakota where Republican Governor Dennis Daugaard vetoed a bill that would have
restricted transgender students’ use of restrooms, locker rooms, and other
gender-specific facilities in public schools. The other defeat was in West Virginia where the state Senate overwhelmingly voted down a toxic license to discriminate bill. The New Civil Rights Movement has details on this positive development. Here are excerpts:

The West Virginia Senate has just
killed an anti-gay "religious freedom" bill that, like many RFRAs
across the nation's legislatures, would have made discriminating against
LGBT people – especially same-sex couples – legal, by letting
anyone or any company, corporation, or organization claim to have a
"sincerely held religious or moral belief" against same-sex marriage
or even LGBT people in general.

HB 4012 had been amended from the
House version to add some protections for LGBT people, but even then, at that
point, it had become toxic.

“The WV Senate’s rejection of House
Bill 4012 is a resounding victory for Fairness West Virginia, our allies, our
supporters, and Mountaineers everywhere,” Andrew Schneider, Executive Director
of the Fairness West Virginia, said in a statement.

“With similar discriminatory
legislation being considered in states across the nation, West Virginia sent a
clear message to the world that Mountaineers do not tolerate discrimination.
This action proves once again that bipartisan support for nondiscrimination
principles is a guiding force in our state.”

The bill had passed the House in a
72-26 vote.

During debate,
Democratic Delegate Mike Pushkin delivered a memorable and impactful
speech, reminding his fellow delegates that "baking
a cake is not persecution."

These Christofascists are truly foul, bigoted people. They are selfish hypocrites who are a threat to religious freedom for all Americans. They are a clear and present danger to the U.S. Constitution and the rights of all Americans. They need to become social and political outcasts.

A grand jury in Pennsylvania has found that the Diocese of Altoona covered up the sexual abuse of hundreds of children by priests of the diocese. The story seemingly never changes, only the location. Sex abuse of children and youths was - and likely still is - systemic in the Roman Catholic Church. And as noted before on this blog, no senior member of the Church hierarchy has been thrown out and stripped of their retirement and luxurious perks. Pope Francis is all talk and crocodile tears, but no action. The Pittsburgh Post- Gazette has a copy of the grand jury report and details on this latest revelation of the moral bankruptcy and criminal conspiracy that permeates the Church hierarchy. Here are excerpts:

ALTOONA — After the tolling of the noon hour Tuesday at the
magnificent domed Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, whose towering
perch above this historic railroad town reflects the Catholic Church’s
long powerful presence in central Pennsylvania, the Rev. Dennis Kurdziel
left little doubt for whom the bell tolled.

“Pray for the victims,” said Father Kurdziel in a somber noontime
Mass, held less than two hours after the release of a state grand jury
report finding that hundreds of children were abused by at least 50
priests and others associated with the church in the Diocese of
Altoona-Johnstown across nearly half a century.

Across town at the Blair County Convention Center, authorities were
releasing a catalog of horrors in a 147-page report by the 37th
Statewide Investigating Grand jury, which spent nearly two years delving
into the case.

Hundreds of children were molested, raped and destined to lasting
psychological trauma by clerics whose abuses were covered up by their
bishops, other superiors and even compliant law-enforcement officials in
Blair and Cambria counties, the report said.

The conspiracy amounted to “soul murder,” the report said, with abuse
happening everywhere from camps and homes to the historic cathedral
itself. That description echoes that of similar grand jury probes into
the Archdiocese of Philadelphia in 2005 and 2011 that found cardinals
and other clerics shifted numerous known abusers from one unsuspecting
parish to another.

These findings are both staggering and sobering,” said the grand jury
report. “Over many years hundreds of children have fallen victim to
child predators wrapped in the authority and integrity of an honorable
faith. As wolves disguised as the shepherds themselves — these men stole
the innocence of children by sexually preying upon the most innocent
and vulnerable .... ”

The two previous bishops leading the diocese — James Hogan, who served
from 1966 to 1986 and died in 2005, and Joseph Adamec, who served from
1987 to 2011 and is now retired — “took actions that further endangered
children as they placed their desire to avoid public scandal over the
well-being of innocent children,” the report said. “Priests were
returned to ministry with full knowledge they were child predators.”

The grand jury said there was an apparent reason for this deference —
that the diocese had political boss-like powers in central
Pennsylvania. Monsignor Saylor said a mayor of Johnstown sent candidates
for police and fire chief to him for interviews, and he would tell the
mayor whom to pick. “That happened in Johnstown and Altoona,” he said.

The grand jury report quoted former Altoona police Chief Peter Starr
as crediting his own appointment to such arrangements and saying that
the “politicians of Blair County were afraid of Monsignor Saylor,” who
was editor of the diocesan newspaper.

With such influence, “Hogan saw no obligation of faith or law to the children of his parishioners,” the grand jury report said.

The report added that even a diocesan review board, impaneled amid
growing public outrage over sexual abuse by priests, often turned into a
travesty, with investigations focusing not on the accused but on those
reporting abuse by priests. In one case, the review board sought
gynecological records of a survivor, the report said. . . . . the grand jury report noted that as late as 2005, the Altoona-Johnstown
diocese was hiring private investigators to look for ways to undercut
the credibility of an alleged accuser.

Again I ask, how can decent, moral people continue to belong to and financially support such a morally bankrupt institution. Is thinking for one's self that frightening of a prospect? As for the social aspects of church membership, why not join a club of fraternal organization that doesn't condone and cover up the raping of children?

As the GOP establishment wrings its hands, Marco Rubio tries to put a positive face on a disastrous showing yesterday in the Super Tuesday primaries, and Ben Carson finally suspends his insane candidacy, one thing appears clear: today's GOP is enamored with authoritarian strong men and extremists who pledge to "make America great again" and protect "religious freedom" as they ride rough shod over the rights of many Americans. A very lengthy piece in Vox looks at the trend - which in my view parallel's what happened in Germany in the early 1930's - and the threat it poses to democracy. GOP authoritarianism is a danger to the rule of law and the rights of minorities. For the LGBT community, the trend is particularly frightening: one third of Trump's supporters want to ban LGBT individuals from America. Here are some extensive article excerpts:

Perhaps strangest of all, it wasn't just Trump but his supporters who seemed to have come out of nowhere, suddenly expressing, in large numbers, ideas far more extreme than anything that has risen to such popularity in recent memory.In South Carolina, a CBS News exit poll found that 75 percent of Republican voters supported banning Muslims from the United States.A PPP poll found that a third of Trump voters support banning gays and lesbians from the country. Twenty percent said Lincoln shouldn't have freed the slaves.

Last September, a PhD student at
the University of Massachusetts Amherst named Matthew MacWilliams realized that
his dissertation research might hold the answer to not just one but all three
of these mysteries.

MacWilliams studies
authoritarianism — not actual dictators, but rather a psychological profile of
individual voters that is characterized by a desire for order and a fear of
outsiders. People who score high in authoritarianism, when they feel
threatened, look for strong leaders who promise to take whatever action
necessary to protect them from outsiders and prevent the changes they fear.

So MacWilliams naturally wondered
if authoritarianism might correlate with support for Trump.

He
polled a large sample of likely voters, looking for correlations between
support for Trump and views that align with authoritarianism. What
he found was astonishing: Not only did authoritarianism correlate, but it
seemed to predict support for Trump more reliably than virtually any other
indicator. He later repeated the same poll in South Carolina, shortly before
the primary there, and found the same results . . . .[A]t Vanderbilt
University, a professor named Marc Hetherington was having his own aha moment.
He realized that he and a fellow political scientist, the University of North
Carolina's Jonathan Weiler, had essentially predicted Trump's rise back in
2009, when they discovered something that would turn out to be far more
significant than they then realized.

That year, Hetherington and Weiler
published a book about the effects of authoritarianism on American politics.
Through a series of experiments and careful data analysis, they had come to a
surprising conclusion: Much of the polarization dividing American politics was
fueled not just by gerrymandering or money in politics or the other oft-cited
variables, but by an unnoticed but surprisingly large electoral group —
authoritarians.

This
trend had been accelerated in recent years by demographic and economic changes
such as immigration, which "activated" authoritarian tendencies,
leading many Americans to seek out a strongman leader who would preserve a
status quo they feel is under threat and impose order on a world they perceive
as increasingly alien.

These
Americans with authoritarian views, they found, were sorting into the GOP,
driving polarization. But they were also creating a divide within the party, at
first latent, between traditional Republican voters and this group whose views
were simultaneously less orthodox and, often, more extreme. . . . . And so it
was all but inevitable that, eventually, authoritarians would gain enough power
within the GOP to make themselves heard.

Authoritarians are thought to
express much deeper fears than the rest of the electorate, to seek the
imposition of order where they perceive dangerous change, and to desire a
strong leader who will defeat those fears with force. They would thus seek a
candidate who promised these things. And the extreme nature of authoritarians'
fears, and of their desire to challenge threats with force, would lead them
toward a candidate whose temperament was totally unlike anything we usually see
in American politics — and whose policies went far beyond the acceptable norms.

A candidate like Donald Trump. . .
. Trump, it turns out, is just the symptom. The rise of American
authoritarianism is transforming the Republican Party and the dynamics of
national politics, with profound consequences likely to extend well beyond this
election.

Authoritarians prioritize social
order and hierarchies, which bring a sense of control to a chaotic world.
Challenges to that order — diversity, influx of outsiders, breakdown of the old
order — are experienced as personally threatening because they risk upending
the status quo order they equate with basic security.

This is, after all, a time of
social change in America. The country is becoming more diverse, which means
that many white Americans are confronting race in a way they have never had to
before. Those changes have been happening for a long time, but in recent years
they have become more visible and harder to ignore. And they are coinciding
with economic trends that have squeezed working-class white people.

[A]uthoritarians skew heavily
Republican. More than 65 percent of people who scored highest on the
authoritarianism questions were GOP voters. More than 55 percent of surveyed
Republicans scored as "high" or "very high" authoritarians.And at the other end of the scale,
that pattern reversed. People whose scores were most non-authoritarian —
meaning they always chose the non-authoritarian parenting answer — were almost
75 percent Democrats.

But the research on
authoritarianism suggests it's not just physical threats driving all this.
There should be another kind of threat — larger, slower, less obvious, but
potentially even more powerful — pushing authoritarians to these extremes: the
threat of social change.

This could come in the form of
evolving social norms, such as the erosion of traditional gender roles or
evolving standards in how to discuss sexual orientation. It could come in the
form of rising diversity, whether that means demographic changes from
immigration or merely changes in the colors of the faces on TV. Or it could be
any changes, political or economic, that disrupt social hierarchies.

What these changes have in common
is that, to authoritarians, they threaten to take away the status quo as they
know it — familiar, orderly, secure — and replace it with something that feels
scary because it is different and destabilizing, but also sometimes because it
upends their own place in society. According to the literature, authoritarians
will seek, in response, a strong leader who promises to suppress the scary
changes, if necessary by force, and to preserve the status quo.

[A]n astonishing 44 percent of
authoritarians believe same-sex marriage is harmful to the country.
Twenty-eight percent rated same-sex marriage as "very bad" for
America, and another 16 percent said that it’s "bad." Only about 35
percent of high-scoring authoritarians said same-sex marriage was
"good" or "very good" for the country.

[W]hite people are also facing the
loss of the privileged position that they previously were able to take for
granted. Whites are now projected to become a minority group over the next few
decades, owing to migration and other factors. The president is a black man,
and nonwhite faces are growing more common in popular culture. Nonwhite groups
are raising increasingly prominent political demands, and often those demands
coincide with issues such as policing that also speak to authoritarian
concerns.

If Trump loses the election, that
will not remove the threats and social changes that trigger the "action
side" of authoritarianism. The authoritarians will still be there. They
will still look for candidates who will give them the strong, punitive
leadership they desire. . . .

It would also mean more problems
for the GOP. . . . The authoritarian base will drag the party further to the
right on social issues, and will simultaneously erode support for traditionally
conservative economic policies. . . . And in the meantime, the forces
activating American authoritarians seem likely to only grow stronger. Norms
around gender, sexuality, and race will continue evolving.

For decades, the Republican Party
has been winning over authoritarians by implicitly promising to stand firm
against the tide of social change, and to be the party of force and power
rather than the party of negotiation and compromise. But now it may be
discovering that its strategy has worked too well — and threatens to tear the
party apart.

In my view, these authoritarians are in need of a mental health intervention. Their fears are irrationals and down right psychotic.

Translate This Page

Contact Me to Order Title Work

LGBT Legal Services

About Me

Out gay attorney in a committed relationship; formerly married and father of three wonderful children; sometime activist and political/news junkie; survived coming out in mid-life and hope to share my experiences and reflections with others.
In the career/professional realm, I am affiliated with Caplan & Associates PC where I practice in the areas of real estate, estate planning (Wills, Trusts, Advanced Medical Directives, Financial Powers of Attorney, Durable Medical Powers of Attorney); business law and commercial transactions; formation of corporations and limited liability companies and legal services to the gay, lesbian and transgender community, including birth certificate amendment.

Disclaimer on Opinions and Content

This Blog contains content that may be innapropriate for readers under the legal age of 18. IF YOU ARE UNDER 18 YEARS OF AGE, PLEASE LEAVE NOW. Thank you

This is an opinion and commentary blog and the opinions and contents of this Blog - including opinions expressed concerning opponents of LGBT equality - are the opinions only of the individual blogger and should not be attributed to any other individuals or to any organization of which the blogger is a past or current member.

Followers

Michael-in-Norfolk disclaims any and all responsibility or liability for the accuracy, content, completeness, legality, reliability, operability, or availability of information or material displayed on this site and does not claim credit for any images or articles featured on this site, unless otherwise noted. All visual content is copyrighted to it's respectful owners. Information on this site may contain errors or inaccuracies, and Michael-in-Norfolk does not make warranty as to the correctness or reliability of the site's content. If you own rights to any of the images or articles, and do not wish them to appear on this site, please contact Michael-in-Norfolk via e-mail and they will be promptly removed. Michael-in-Norfolk contains links to other Internet sites. These links are provided solely as a convenience and are not endorsements of any products or services in such sites, and no information or content in such site has been endorsed or approved by this blog.